Digital video processing — US PTAB Patent Cases
5 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 5 total
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR on a video‑coding patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the denial was proper and requested the review be denied.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a video‑encoding patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that Google’s statutory arguments are unfounded.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.